Posts Tagged ‘Fox News’

Let me just start with an entirely separate incident to frame this story about the wickedness, dishonesty and vileness of liberals and liberalism before I move on to the elected Democrat official’s being wicked, dishonest and vile.

Mr. Hicks appeared to have a deep dislike of all religion. On his Facebook page, nearly all of his posts expressed support for atheism, criticism of Christian conservatives or both.

Last month, he posted a photograph that said, “Praying is pointless, useless, narcissistic, arrogant, and lazy; just like the imaginary god you pray to.”

Mr. Hicks’s wife, Karen, insisted at a news conference that her husband was not a bigot. “I can say with absolute belief that this incident had nothing to do with religion or the victims’ faith, but it was related to a longstanding parking dispute that my husband had with the neighbors,” she said.

His wife also pointed out his support for gay rights and the right to abortion.

[Video] Wife Says Gunman Believed in Equality

Karen Hicks, the wife of Craig Stephen Hicks, who is accused of murdering three Muslim students, said he championed individuals’ rights on his Facebook page and believed everyone was equal.

Okay, so the shooter is a rabid atheist who hates conservatives and Christians and is a rabid supporter of abortion and homosexual marriage. I know what you’re thinking: if this clown doesn’t spend all day getting his worldview fed to him by Fox News, then I’m the world’s greatest athlete.

Oh, you’re not thinking that because that would be idiotic, given that Fox News if anything presents the very opposite of this turd?

Well, that doesn’t stop the left from framing Fox News for the work of one of their own fascist slimeballs. I actually saw the coverage on MSNBC blaming Fox News, but here’s the work of CNN doing it:

Shafi Khan, a self-described friend of the Muslim students shot dead Tuesday in North Carolina, specifically blamed Fox News, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Oklahoma state Rep. John Bennett for what he called the “dehumanization of Muslims.”

“Speaking as an American Muslim, I can tell you that we can’t deny there’s a sentiment in the community that we feel that we were being targeted for our faith,” Mr. Khan, a North Carolina native who co-founded United Muslim Relief, told CNN. “There is certain sections of the media and political apparatus that are constantly dehumanizing Muslims. And I want to take a minute and ask people like Fox News and Bobby Jindal to stop the dehumanization of Muslims. It’s really, really starting to take a toll.”

Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, was arrested and charged with three counts of first-degree murder after turning himself in to Chapel Hill authorities for the shooting deaths of Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife, Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19.

Apart from the fact that the leftist press is trying to blame the ONE network we can safely assume atheist abortion loving sodomy worshiper Craig Hicks DID NOT watch, what else do we have? Of course we’ve got these rabid liberals screaming to take away our guns, but who are the murderous whackjobs that kill with guns? The very liberals who want to take them away. Which is another way of pointing out the fact that “liberal” or “Democrat” is a synonym for “liar” and “hypocrite without shame, honor or decency.”

I have made it clear that America will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism. Rather, we have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces – taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely upon. At the same time, we have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.

President Obama used the annual National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday to draw those in attendance to the “terrible deeds” committed “in the name of Christ.”

While speaking at the Washington event, Mr. Obama had harsh words for the Islamic State group, but he also put a spotlight on the Crusades.

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Mr. Obama said. SEE ALSO: Obama equates Islamic terrorism with ‘terrible deeds’ committed by Christians
The president added that members of the Sunni radical terror group are part of “brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism.”

The president’s speech came just days after Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh was burned alive by the Islamic State group. The member of the U.S.-led coalition had been held prisoner since December after his F-16 crashed.

So we catch Obama in the act of blaming religion in general and then specifically trying to create a false moral equivalence and point his finger at Christians while shielding the religion of Islam that is actually responsible for 99.999% of violent acts of terror today. You know, excluding the ones that atheists are responsible for.

Lenin said that religion is the opium of the people… [But] it is only by believing in God that we can ever criticize the Government. Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God. That fact is written all across human history; but it is written most plainly across that recent history of Russia; which was created by Lenin…Lenin only fell into a slight error: he only got it the wrong way round. The truth is that irreligion is the opium of the people. Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world.

What has happened is that socialist – by which I mean a hybrid of fascist and communist – liberal Democrats such as Barack Obama have done everything they can to replace God with The State. And apart from God – and specifically the God of the Bible – The State is beyond question. It’s motives are simply “truth” because there is no greater power and no greater “truth” than Government left.

Radical Muslims and radical liberals want the same thing: the State elevated to the power of Deity and having complete control over our lives and our liberties and our freedom. They both have the exact same end and the only difference is the means to that end. And liberals such as Barack Obama and Maxine Waters believe that they can either negotiate with or appease radical Islam.

So with that setup that occurred after I had basically written the following, let me get to the story I initially intended to write about.

Rep. Maxine Waters, a multi-term elected Democrat in good standing, believes that if you don’t like sharia law, you are a bigot and you need to have your freedoms crushed.

She’s hardly the only Democrat holding this position: in her most recent appearance where she claims that any opposition to sharia law amounts to racism and bigotry, she cited a host of Democrats who were there with her supporting this insanity including Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Rep. Judy Chu, California State Controller John Chiang, among others.

The only refreshing thing here is that at least Maxine Waters is saying what Barack Hussein Obama clearly believes.

It is AMAZING how profoundly deceived and how frankly demon-possessed Democrats are today. Islam is THE most oppressive force on the planet today. There has NEVER been a democracy arise within Islam and there never WILL be an Islamic democracy that arises within Islam because of the facts about Islam as revealed in the great book, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (which is entirely available for FREE at the link as a PDF document). Or you can buy your own copy.

Islam murders homosexuals. Islam forces women into a life of ignorance where they walk around as living tents with only the slits of their eyes exposed if they don’t have to veil those, too. Islam enslaves blacks in numbers as great as anything Democrats – yes, DEMOCRATS – in America did when Lincoln and his fellow Republicans went to war to defeat the aforementioned Democrats to abolish slavery.

And yet these demon-possessed people, these DEMOn-possessed-bureauCRATS, have only hostility and slander for Christianity and for Christ.

10 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam#1 “Islam has always been part of America”#2 “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”#3 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”#4 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”#5 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”#6 “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”#7 “As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.”#8 “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”#9 “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”#10 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

And now consider by way of contrast ten statements by Obama condemning and undermining Christianity:

#1 Ten interesting quotes by Obama regarding Christianity: 1 “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”2 “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”3 “Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”4 “Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”5 “The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”6 From Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”7 “I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.”8 “Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God’s will–they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths.”9 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.”10 “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

And once you’ve “fundamentally transformed” Christianity – just as Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24:5 and 11 that false messiahs would do in His name – you can of course pervert it into a religion that embraces homosexuality and abortion and government-imposed socialism and illegal immigration that Obama has led America into embracing.

The left very clearly has an agenda from the very heart of the devil. Incredibly, stunningly, they are actually embracing radical Islam even as it is revealing itself as the ugliest worldview since Nazism. There is simply no question progressive liberalism as a movement is doing this; the only question is, why on earth are they doing something that flies in the face of their stated principles???

I have pointed out the reasons for that hatred by Democrats – who want a holocaust of murdered babies, the institution of homosexual sodomy and the exaltation of the State in place of belief in God, His Word and His Ways – as they impose ANYTHING but Christ and Christianity upon society and as they fight to ensure the defeat of the America that our founding fathers fought to create and Lincoln fought to preserve. I documented three reasons why liberal Democrats insanely and hypocritically defend and protect Islam even as they attack and undermine Christianity. The first is found in the words of Jesus about Christians and Christianity:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.” — John 15:18-21

Democrats hate Christians and despise Christianity because they hate Jesus. It is as simple as that and Jesus told us it would happen and why it would happen. And so while you would think that liberals would oppose the hate and intolerance of Islam that pisses in the eye of all their views as it murders homosexuals and tortures women, they embrace it simply because it’s better to them than the Jesus they hate with every fiber of their being.

The second reason is the stunning and frankly Luciferian arrogance of atheism and secular humanism. Liberals truly don’t believe that ANYONE actually believes in God. They believe that everyone has to ultimately think just like they do; and the unwashed masses who “cling to their religion” are just too stupid as herd animals to realize it. And so they believe with Marx that religion is merely an opiate for the masses – notwithstanding that Chesterton pointed out that in their prideful wickedness they actually got that ass-backwards – and that their economic socialism will turn the radical Muslims – whom of course they insanely repeatedly tell us have nothing to do with either Islam or even religion – to their view through some Obama process of appeasement and negotiation. And the third reason liberals defend jihadist Muslims is that Muslims actually ultimately want to have a government – just like progressive liberalism – a government that has all the power and prerogatives of God or Allah. And progressive liberals don’t really care what the means is to total government power as long as they have the end of total government power. Because they arrogantly and foolishly believe they will ultimately get their secular humanist way.

And so here we are, with Democrats insanely arguing that if we don’t like the sharia law that is increasingly going to be stuffed down our throats, it’s only because we’re “bigots.”

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. – Colossians 2:8 NLT

We are human, but we don’t wage war as humans do. We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ. – 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 NLT

You don’t have very much time left before Barack Hussein Obama, his Democrat Party and his “fundamentally transformed” America bring about the Antichrist prophesied in the Holy Bible who will impose a system of total government domination over the economy and over society –

He required everyone–small and great, rich and poor, free and slave–to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name. Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. His number is 666. — Revelation 13:16-18

– just as these wicked Democrats have been working to impose for decades: a government system that has total power over us and has the power to force us to do what they want.

The beast is coming. Americans voted for it and then they re-elected it. And now it is close at hand.

“One of our values at West Liberty is to encourage students to go out and inquire and gather information and look at as many different sources as possible on any side, before you reach your opinion,” said Robin Capehart, president of West Liberty University.

Upset students and parents have taken their concerns to local media, like NEWS9’s news partner Dave Bloomquist at WWVA, who shared an email from a concerned parent with us.

And, of course, it doesn’t matter if it’s right there on her damn syllabus that yes she did tell her students not to use Fox News. Just like it doesn’t matter how many times Obama has been caught red-bloody-handed in one galling and appalling lie after another.

This is why the two fields that most pat themselves on the back for their “openness to the truth” and for “tolerance” – academia and journalism (see here and here for more examples) – are in fact THE most intolerant and biased fields in America. Stephanie Wolfe is merely one of thousands of rabidly intolerant pseudo-intellectuals who are too stupid to understand that they themselves are the very thing they claim to most despise.

When the beast comes, liberal professors and liberal journalists will be the first to worship him and endorse his mark.

“The Obama folks clearly know they’ve found some traction on this tax return issue with Romney,” said NBC’s Lester Holt. “And then of course late in the week comes this challenge–‘give us a little more and we won’t complain anymore.’ Has this issue come to the point it’s jumped the shark?”

“I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this,” said Halperin.

The mainstream media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants. True dat.

The second comes from Jake Tapper, and becomes even more relevant when you consider Halperin’s observation:

In an interview with Laura Ingraham, White House reporter Jake Tapper said that the media is failing the country.

“A lot of people are hurting out there. Unemployment is 8.3 percent. That doesn’t even take into account the underemployed,” he said, arguing that too much time has been spent not talking about the economy.

Tapper also criticized the media for not giving enough attention to the war in Afghanistan.

“We are spending a lot of time in the last few weeks, those of us in the political world, political journalists and also politicians, talking about things other than the economy,” said Tapper. “[A] lot of people are hurting out there. I’d like to see more action taken and more emphasis given to this issue.”

Tapper also said he relates to Mark Halperin’s recent comments about the media. Over the weekend, Halperin said, “I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this.”

“I have said before… [that I] thought the media helped tip the scales. I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hilary Clinton or John McCain,” Tapper said.

On the 2008 coverage, he noted, “Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, [the] campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.”

Hillary Clinton appeared on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday morning, where she discussed sexism with co-host Gretchen Carlson and took the opportunity to say that she “appreciated” Fox News’ balanced coverage of her campaign.

[…]

“We did call them on it at Fox, in fact I think you went on record saying that Fox was the most fair and balanced place during the time when you were running,” Carlson said.

“There were a lot of times when I appreciated the commentators and reporters on Fox who did step up and make that clear,” Clinton responded.

Clinton also said that Sarah Palin is facing the same sort of sexism that she faced.

I wish a major polling organization would do a poll on registered Democrats and ask the question, “Do you believe Hillary Clinton would have done a better job governing the country than Barack Obama has?” I truly believe that most Democrats would respond, “Hell yes!”

Fox News was fair and balanced when all the other mainstream media “news” outletswere in the tank swooning in adoration with their legs tingling for Obama.

Barack Obama has profoundly damaged America. And either John McCain ORHillary Clinton would have done a HELL of a lot better job than this failed turd. And the only network that gave either of those candidates any chance at all is the Fox News network which also happens to be the ONLY NEWS NETWORK WHOSE ANCHORS WEAR AMERICAN FLAG PINS ON THEIR LAPELS. Because unlike ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., Fox News actually gives a flying damn about America rather than sanctimoniously considering themselves above America and “citizens of the world” the way all the other propaganda outlets do. There’s a reason that a story came out that ABC banned their journalists from wearing American flag pins – because nobody the hell was WEARING ONE. Rather, the mainstream media are following their “citizen of the world-in-chief” Barack Obama.

Fox News is different from Obama and all the other mainstream media “citizens of the world.” They actually give a damn about their country. Which is why they wear American flag pins when others won’t and which is why they gave fair coverage to Hillary Clinton and John McCain when others wouldn’t.

Hillary Clinton ought to finally understand what it’s like to be a Republican. Because the mainstream media treated her like a Republican until it was time for them to swivel their guns to take aim at John McCain.

Doctrinaire liberal “journalist” Evan Thomas of Newsweek birdcage-liner fame once said this in a candid moment:

The media, I think, want [Democratic presidential candidate John F.] Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and [running mate John] Edwards…as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points…”

—then how much is Obama’s press worth?

I’d say about double that.

And aren’t Evans’ remarks even more on target as a description of the Obama mystique than they ever were for Kerry/Edwards?

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

So when a guy like Evan Thomas says that basically the Republican has to win by MORE than fifteen pointsbecause that’s what the media is going to give to the Democrat, you get a sense of how desperate we are in these last days of America as a Joseph Goebbels press runs amok with reality.

And, yes, as Jake Tapper indicates, there are ALL KINDSof big stories that the news media ought to be focusing on like a laser beam – which is EXACTLY what they would be doing if the incumbant were George Bush rather than Barack Hussein.

So to Jake Tapper’s big questions that the media are refusing to cover: does the Obama campaign want to talk about the economy? How about HELL NO:

Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville have released a striking new report arguing in stark terms that some key voting groups now reject President Obama’s claim that the economy is improving — and may well reject Obama himself in November.

Democracy Corps, the political consulting group run by Greenberg and Carville, showed several Obama campaign commercials to focus groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Several of the group members, who were “all independents or weak partisans and ticket-splitters” and included both Obama and McCain voters from 2008, became irritated when shown Obama ads touting economic improvement. They don’t see that improvement in their own lives, the report says, and they don’t believe Obama when he claims things are better.

The fact of the matter is that Obama CAN’T talk about the economy because he has wildly and spectacularly failed – and in fact has wildly and spectacularly failed according to his very own rhetoric.

It truly is stunning. If you examine the casualties in Afghanistan, you find that fully damn HALF of them occurred just during the last 27 months of the failed Obama presidency. Keep in mind, this is a war that Bush fought all eight years of his presidency … with a total of 630 American KIA during those eight years. The other 1,472 dead – seventy percent of all the casualties of the entire war – are all on Obama during less than HALF the time.

And where are all the damn liberals and the Cindy Sheehans crying over the dead soldiers when we really need them???

Do you believe that the Obama campaign wants to talk about Obama’s failure in Afghanistan and how Obama is working on being the first loser since the last Democrat war debacle in Vietnam???

THAT’S why the mainstream media isn’t talking about this stuff, Jake. Because Obama doesn’t want them to and Obama is the mainstream media messiah as no one else has EVER been.

The Obama campaign wants to talk about Mitt Romney as a “vampire capitalist” who outsourced jobs at Bain. So they talk about Bain the way Obama wants them to even though Mitt Romney built up 8 out of 10 of the failing businesses he rescued, even though all of the examples of “outsourcing” occurred AFTERRomney left Bain and in fact WHILE Obama’s top bundler was the head of Bain, and even though OBAMA is a FAR bigger outsourcer. The Obama campaign wants to talk about Mitt Romney’s taxes, so the media have fixated on Mitt Romney’s taxes

The one thing you can absolutely guarantee is that the mainstream media will do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IT CAN DO to ensure that this campaign isn’t about the central issues facing the nation – because if it was Obama would lose in a landslide.

In a letter written in January 2011 to an unknown recipient, American al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn discussed al Qaeda’s media strategy for the 10th anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Here is an excerpt from the letter in which the spokesman discusses how to approach American media, critiques the various networks, and whether to offer a television network an exclusive interview with Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, then al Qaeda’s second-in-command.

As far as the American channel that could be used to deliver our messages, whether on the tenth anniversary or before or after, in my personal opinion there are no distinct differences between the channels from the standpoint of professionalism and neutrality. It is all as the Shaykh [Osama Bin Laden] has stated (close to professionalism and neutrality) it has not and will not reach the perfect professionalism and neutrality, only if God wants that.

From the professional point of view, they are all on one level except (Fox News) channel which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks neutrality too. As for the neutrality of CNN in English, it seems to be in cooperation with the government more than the others (except Fox News of course). Its Arabic version brings good and detailed reports about al-Sahab releases, with a lot of quotations from the original text. That means they copy directly from the releases or its gist. It is not like what other channels and sites do, copying from news agencies like Reuters, AP and others.

I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit, but is has lately fired two of the most famous journalists –Keith Olberman and Octavia Nasser the Lebanese – because they released some statements that were open for argument (The Lebanese had praised a Shia Imam Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah after is death and called him “One of the marvels of Hizballah” it seems she is a Shia.)

CBS channel was mentioned by the Shaykh, I see that it is like the other channels, but it has a famous program (60 Minutes) that has some popularity and a good reputation for its long
broadcasting time. Only God knows the reality, as I am not really in a position to do so. ABC channel is all right; actually it could be one of the best channels, as far as we are concerned. It is interested in al- Qa’ida issues, particularly the journalist Brian Ross, who is specialized in terrorism. The channel is still proud for its interview with the Shaykh. It also broadcasted excerpts from a speech of mine on the fourth anniversary, it also published most of that text on its site on the internet.

In conclusion, we can say that there is no single channel that we could rely on for our messages. I may ignore them, and even the channel that broadcast them, probably it would distort them somehow. This is accomplished by bringing analysts and experts that would interpret its meaning in the way they want it to be.

Or they may ignore the message and conduct a smearing of the individuals, to the end of the list of what you know about their cunning methods.

But if the display -in the next anniversary for example- of a special type, like a special interview with Shaykh Usama or Shaykh Ayman [al-Zawahiri], and with questions chosen by the channel, and with a good camera, we might find a channel that would accept its broadcasting. But they would accept this time, so as to get an exclusive press scoop: The first press interview of Shaykh Usama or Shaykh Ayman since 10 years ago! Particularly if the Shaykh is the one to be interviewed. This is because of the scarcity of his appearance during the last nine years. Because of the poor photographic quality of the last two releases –I do not know the photo quality this time- this led those believers in conspiracy theory to speculate if the person was the Shaykh, and you may have seen the program (Ben Ladin, alive or dead?) that was broadcast by Al Jazeera.

Accordingly, a high quality speech (HD) may receive some interest by some channels in the tenth anniversary. If the quality of the new Shaykh’s speech is high, relative to the two previous speeches, you may think to compress it or take some measures to decrease the quality, to be similar to the previous ones, and I am talking seriously.

In general, and no matter what material we send, I suggest that we should distribute it to more than one channel, so that there will be healthy competition between the channels in broadcasting the material, so that no other channel takes the lead. It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News, let her die in her anger. That is if there was no agreement with a specific channel to publish a specific material, or conduct an interview, or the like.

It’s just such a huge surprise to me that the people who most hate and despise America apprecated Keith Olbermann. I sure hope MSNBC is listening and begs for his return since he parted ways with fellow America-hater Al Gore.

As every liberal Democrat says: “may Allah destroy Fox News that the Great Satan America will be blind to the truth and utterly perish.”

PPP’s 3rd annual TV news trust poll (2011 version here, 2010 version here) finds that Fox News tops the list for both the source Americans trust the most and the one they trust the least.

Fox is the most trusted TV news source for 34% of voters, followed by PBS at 17%, CNN at 12%, ABC News at 11%, CBS News at 8%, MSNBC at 5%, and Comedy Central and NBC each at 4%.

68% of Republicans pick Fox as their most trusted source, with no one else even hitting double digits. Democrats split closely three ways with PBS at 21%, ABC News at 19%, and CNN at 17%. Despite having a reputation for appealing to the left MSNBC actually polls in only 6th place among Democrats at 8%, finishing slightly behind even Fox News’ 9%. Independents split almost evenly between Fox News (29%) and PBS (27%).

Fox is also the least trusted TV news source for 34% of voters, followed by Comedy Central at 16%, MSNBC at 15%, CNN at 11%, ABC News at 7%, CBS News at 5%, PBS at 2%, and NBC News at 1%.

Democrats (53-17 over Comedy Central) and independents (44-13 over Comedy Central) both overwhelmingly say Fox is their least trusted news source. Republicans go for MSNBC by a 28-23 margin over CNN, followed by Comedy Central at 18% and ABC News at 10%.

In addition to asking the single network voters trusted the most and least, we also asked them to say whether they trusted each individual source. Here’s how they came out from net most trusted to least, compared with the previous two polls:

Outlet

2012 Trust/Distrust

2011 Trust/Distrust

2010 Trust/Distrust

Shift from 2010 to 2012

Shift from 2011 to 2012

PBS

(52/30) +22

(50/30) +20

Not Tested

N/A

+2

NBC News

(44/38) +6

(41/41) 0

(35/44) -9

+15

+6

CNN

(43/39) +4

(40/43) -3

(39/41) -2

+6

+7

Fox News

(45/42) +3

(42/46) -4

(49/37) +12

-9

+7

CBS News

(40/42) -2

(36/43) -7

(32/46) -14

+12

+5

ABC News

(37/40) -3

(35/43) -8

(31/46) -15

+12

+5

MSNBC

(38/43) -5

Not Tested

Not Tested

N/A

N/A

Comedy Central

(28/46) -18

Not Tested

Not Tested

N/A

N/A

-For the second year in a row PBS easily comes out ahead as the outlet the most people trust, even if it isn’t necessarily the one they trust the most.

-In general trust in television news has been on the rise over the last two years. Trust in NBC News is up 15 points compared to 2010, CBS and ABC News are both up by 12 points, and CNN is up by 6 points. The only outlet in worse shape than it was 2 years ago is Fox News, which is down 9 points. But they’re still headed in the right direction- they’re up 7 points from 2011 after dropping by 16 points between 2010 and 2011.

-Democrats trust everything- except Fox News. NBC does the best with them at +50 (67/17), followed by PBS and CNN at +49 (66/17 and 65/16 respectively), ABC at +38 (57/19), CBS at +35 (58/23), MSNBC at +33 (56/23), and even Comedy Central at +4 (36/32). Fox News comes in at -36 (25/61).

-Republicans meanwhile don’t trust anything except Fox News. PBS comes the closest to breaking even among non-Fox outlets, although not very close, at -30 (26/56). It’s followed by CNN at -49 (18/67), MSNBC at -51 (18/69), NBC at -52 (17/69), CBS at -54 (17/71), ABC at -56 (14/70), and Comedy Central at -59 (12/71). But Fox News comes in at a stellar 73/17.

Independents are with the Democrats. They trust everything except Fox News. Main takeaway from this poll: tv news has become just as polarizing as the political parties in this country.

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is an American Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[1][2][3] PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman and Democratic pollster Dean Debnam, the firm’s current president and chief executive officer.[1][4]

When Fox News calls itself “the most trusted name in news,” what they are underscoring is that the Democrats who continually demonize them are liars.

ABC Anchor Diane Sawyer sits across from Bill O’Reilly last night and casually says that ABC broke the story about the tapes featuring the sermons of now radioactive and decidedly ex-Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright.

“You’re talking to the network…Obama White House remembers this… that broke the Jeremiah Wright tapes.”

The implication?

ABC News was Johnny-on-the-spot on the story of then-Senator Obama’s now infamous — and ex — pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In March of 2008.

Remember that date. March — 2008. Here’s the link to the story, filed on March 13 by ABC’s Brian Ross

This remark came about in the course of a conversation with O’Reilly in which Sawyer, discussing the role of ABC News in the last presidential campaign, insisted that her network was not populated by liberals who tilted the news leftward. O’Reilly had cited a study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs on the network news coverage of the Obama-McCain campaign that showed the tilt in favorable coverage for Obama over McCain as follows:

Obama McCain

CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56% 16%
ABC 57% 42%

ABC had fared best of the three broadcast networks, but the point of liberal media bias — the kind of reporting that dates as far back as the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon campaign — stood. So O’Reilly persisted.

And out popped the above statement on Jeremiah Wright.

Let’s be clear here. Sawyer used the word “tapes” — and strictly speaking she is correct.

The problem comes with the context — in which she is clearly trying to imply that ABC was the proverbial dog with a bone in uncovering the relationship of Wright to his famous congregant, and what the implications might be for the country if a man who sat in Wright’s pews for 20 years listening to Wright’s leftist political rants were elected president.

Bluntly put — this is poppycock.

The man — and the network — that did the background research on this was, yes indeed, Sean Hannity and Fox News.

On February 28, 2007 — over a full year before ABC first aired its Wright story — Hannity had located columnist Erik Rush, who had written an article on Senator Obama and his church. He put Rush on the air that night.

The very next night, Hannity had managed to corral Wright himself on his Fox show with liberal Alan Colmes. Here’s the clip.

Out poured the tale of Wright’s devotion to Black Liberation Theology and the radical writings of James Cone and Dwight Hopkins. From this initial work the connections of Wright to Louis Farrakhan and Libya’s Colonel Muammar Qaddafi were uncovered and more.

And on it went.

The role of ABC News here?

Zip, nada, zero.

And yet plain as can be, there sits Diane Sawyer, the anchor of ABC News, on the set of Fox’s O’Reilly Factortrying to pretend ABC was a prime mover in Hannity’s story — a Fox story that surely would never have seen the light of day anywhere had it not been for Hannity’s tenacity in digging it out and putting it on TV. And, as regular viewers will recall, being snickered at while doing it — snickering that stopped when Obama finally felt so much pressure on Wright he stopped going to the church and felt the need to publicly rebuke the man he had once said was like an “uncle” to him.

Ms. Sawyer insisted her network would be providing “fantastic coverage” of the 2012 race, citing the liberal ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos as a key member of her team.

If this is an example of the work to come from ABC News on the 2012 presidential campaign… well, we report, you decide.

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight: As we reported last night, elements of the national liberal media have begun their campaign to re-elect President Obama. The attacks on Fox News are being stepped up, and we used an example of NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell deriding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for criticizing Mr. Obama.

Here now to talk about the Obama advantage in the media, Fox News political analyst Charles Krauthammer, who is in Washington this evening. So how much of an advantage? Because in my lifetime covering politics, 35 years now, I’ve never seen a media as rabidly invested in a president as the liberal national media is in Mr. Obama. Have you?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think that is true, and you can see it in a Pew study, Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism that they did in 2008 election. They found that of the three cable networks, Fox played it absolutely right down the middle, the same amount of favorability to McCain as to Obama. CNN three times as favorable to Obama as to McCain; MSNBC 5 to 1. So, I mean, and that was four years ago. Interesting, to give you an idea of how biased the media is, when it issued a press release on that study, Bill, it played it as CNN was the cable norm, with MSNBC on one side and Fox on the other deviating from the norm. The norm being the pro-Obama bias of CNN, rather than the norm that any objective American would say, which is what Fox has done, which was to play it right down the middle.

O’REILLY: Sure. Now, there was another study done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs that showed the network broadcasts — CBS, ABC and NBC — were 68 percent positive for Obama, Senator Obama, then-Senator Obama, 32 percent negative. For John McCain, it was the reverse: 36 positive, 64 negative. So, my contention is that nothing is going to change this time around. That the national TV media and the big urban newspapers, like The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, will all be trying to get President Obama re-elected. So the question then becomes: How much of an advantage is it for the president?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it’s a major advantage, but you’ve got to remember this. The left, the Democrats always have the press on their side. They’ve had it for 40 years. Nonetheless, the Republicans have won the presidency seven out of the last 11 elections, and that’s because what Republicans have, what conservatives have is the country, which is a center-right country, has remained so almost unchangingly for four decades. So what the media bias does is it slightly — it gives an advantage. It’s a major advantage, but it’s undoing the deficit that Democrats and liberals already have because it’s a country that is not essentially conducive to a liberal message.

And as bad as it appears to be with the tilt in favorable coverage for liberal Barack Obama for, well, somewhat less liberal John McCain – (and here is the result of the study again):

Obama McCain

CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56% 16%
ABC 57% 42%

– I believe it is actually FAR worse than that.

The reason I say that is there’s an implicit assumption that isn’t true; namely, that both John McCain and Barack Obama had exactly the same negative baggage or positive qualities. As an example, if Tom and Dick had pretty much the exact same record, and the press covered Dick more favorably than Tom, you’d certainly be able to show bias.

But what if Dick had a long history of radical associations, beginning with communist Frank Marshall Davis, and including racist un-American bigots such as Jeremiah Wright and terrorists such as William Ayers? What if Dick had all the political baggage of a Chicago thug, including dirty deals with criminal scumbags such as Tony Rezko? What if Dick’s wife had all KINDS of dirty baggage? What if Dick could be documented to have a radical history of being a communist? Just as a couple of examples? Would it be fair or legitimate to expect the coverage to be evenly “favorable” versus “unfavorable,” or would FAIR and OBJECTIVE coverage have skewed dramatically against Dick???

In the case of Barack Obama, the guy who deserved virtually ALL the negative coverage got virtually NONE. Versus war hero John McCain who should have received very little unfavorable coverage and got virutally nothing BUT???

And that same overwhelming media bias that got Obama an undeserved victory and the presidency in 2008 is just as biased today in defending the failure’s record.

One of the interesting things about the mainstream media’s wars on Fox is just how hypocritical the Fox News haters are.

As an example, Geraldine Ferraro passed away. Fox News spent the day honoring the first woman to truly break the ceiling in the modern political era. And although a famous liberal, Ferraro was a Fox News contributor. Because Fox News actually is fair and balanced. Roger Ailes personally honored Geraldine Ferraro as a woman who “made deep contributions on a number of significant issues.” Which is to say that Fox News shows a degree of class that is entirely lacking in the media dominated by the unbalanced and hysterical left.

When the mainstream media outlets hires Sarah Palin as a highly-respected contributor, come back and see me.

If you watch leftwing liberal hatchet organizations such as Media Matters, and then watch the mainstream news coverage, it is remarkable how often talking points that started with the KoolAid-drinking Media Matters end up on the “respected” mainstream media coverage.

Media Matters says it. The mainstream media outlets pick it up and report it much the way they pick up and report other ideological leftist sources such as the New York Times, and it is spat out as “fact.”

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

The group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites, which its leaders view as political organizations and the “nerve center” of the conservative movement. The shift reflects the centrality of the cable channel to the contemporary conservative movement, as well as the loathing it inspires among liberals — not least among the donors who fund Media Matters’ staff of about 90, who are arrayed in neat rows in a giant war room above Massachusetts Avenue.

“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.

The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”

In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)

Brock said Media Matters also plans to run a broad campaign against Fox’s parent company, News Corp., an effort which most likely will involve opening a United Kingdom arm in London to attack the company’s interests there. The group hired an executive from MoveOn.org to work on developing campaigns among News Corp. shareholders and also is looking for ways to turn regulators in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network.

The group will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests — whether that be here or looking at what’s going on in London right now,” Brock said, referring to News Corp.’s — apparently successful — move to take a majority stake in the satellite broadcaster BSkyB.

A spokeswoman for Fox News, Irena Briganti, declined to comment on Media Matters’ efforts, but the group draws regular barbs from Fox hosts Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

“Tonight is not an episode you casually watch and take out of context like Media Matters does,” Beck remarked last month.

A more extended attack came in February on the freewheeling late night show Red Eye, which conducted a mock interview with a purported Media Matters employee.

“It’s horrible. All we do is sit and watch Fox News and make up stuff about Fox News. It is the saddest place I have ever seen in my life. I think about it, and I want to throw up,” the mock employee said. “I get to work and I take off my clothes, and they strap me into a chair in front of a TV with [Fox News Channel] on. They keep my eyelids propped open like in “Clockwork Orange,” and I sit and type all day.

“If there was no Beck, George Soros would come down and demand we make it up,” the “interviewee” continued. “I would watch the “Flintstones” and transcribe Fred Flintstone’s words and attribute them to Beck. It was the only way to get Soros to stop hitting me.”

(A Soros associate said the financier, who gave Media Matters $1 million last year, did not earmark it for the Fox campaign. Soros suggested in a recent CNN interview that the Fox depictions of him as a sinister media manipulator would better be applied to Murdoch.)

In some views, the war between Media Matters and Fox is not, necessarily, bad for either side. Media Matters has transformed itself into a pillar of the progressive movement with its aggressive new brand of media campaigning. And the attacks cement Fox’s status on the right.

“Fox is happy about it — and it makes their position more vivid among their supporters,” said Paul Levinson, a media studies professor at Fordham University. “One way of keeping your core supporters happy is to be attacked by people your core supporters don’t like.”

But Media Matters says its digging has begun to pay off. The group has trickled out a series of emails from Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon, leaks from inside the network, which show him, for instance, circulating a memo on “Obama’s references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists.”

The leaks are part of a broader project to take advantage of internal dissent, Media Matters Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt said.

“We made a list of every single person who works for Fox and tried to figure out who might be disgruntled and why, and we went out to try to meet them,” he said. “Clearly, somebody in that organization is giving us primary source documents.”

Media Matters, he said, is also conducting “opposition research” on a dozen or so “mid- and senior-level execs and producers,” a campaign style move that he and Brock said would simply involve recording their public appearances and digging into public records associated with them.

And Brock’s 2010 planning memo offers a glimpse at Media Matters’ shift from media critic to a new species of political animal.

“Criticizing Fox News has nothing to do with criticizing the press,” its memo says. “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

The tactics that Media Matters are using – “sabotage” even on their own acknowledgment – ought to show any decent person that the mainstream media has truly been infiltrated by fascist, Soviet-style thugs.

I mean, think about it: “guerrilla warfare and sabotage”? This is done by people and organizations who have “Little Red Books” or “Mein Kampfs” to accompany their tactics. Fox News isn’t out there using “guerrilla warfare and sabotage”; it’s the people who say Fox News is evil who then use the most profoundly un-American tactics. That should be very informative to non-moral idiots.

Sadly, while conservatives rose up in 2010, it seems that the long-term trend is that there are fewer and fewer decent people who are willing to do less and less. And all the while the hateful left are busy working like ants stripping the dying carcass of America.

Bad people not only lie; they believe lies. That’s why we’re seeing more and more lies today. And it’s why the left can justify openly using “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” that would have been condemned by better people.

Jesus talked about the last days. He said a lot of terrifying things would happen. There would be worldwide economic collapses, wars and rumors of wars, many earthquakes and great signs in the oceans in many diverse places, and famines; all anticipating a coming antichrist (“the beast”) who would promise a Utopia but who would ultimately deliver hell on earth.

And it’s all coming while we watch NBC smuggle in Media Matters’ talking points in the guise of “news.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – who gave his own life in his stand against Adolf Hitler – said a few things that truly apply to us as we sit idly by watching our boob tubes while bad people with a bad agenda take the world away from us:

“When all is said and done, the life of faith is nothing if not an unending struggle of the spirit with every available weapon against the flesh.”

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Stop letting these people “frame the news” while you watch like a slack-jawed drooling imbecile. If you’re going to sit there, at least muster the moral outrage to change the channel.

EXCLUSIVE: An attack on the compound of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi on Sunday had to be curtailed because of journalists nearby, Fox News has learned.

British sources confirmed that seven Storm Shadow missiles were ready to be fired from a British aircraft, but the strikes had to be curtailed due to crews from CNN, Reuters and other organizations nearby. Officials from Libya’s Ministry of Information brought those journalists to the area to show them damage from the initial attack and to effectively use them as human shields.

The curtailment of this mission led to a great deal of consternation by coalition commanders, sources told Fox News, but they opted to call off the mission to avoid civilian casualties.

During a Pentagon briefing on Monday, coalition commanders said the huge compound was targeted due to its air defense systems on the perimeter and a military command and control center. It was not targeted to kill Qaddafi, commanders said.

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials said on Monday that Qatar is sending six planes to Libya to participate in support missions, becoming the third Arab nation to send aircraft to the African nation. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also announced on Monday that its role in Libya is “strictly confined” to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Libya.

In coordination with Turkey, the United Arab Emirates has sent a ship loaded with medical and humanitarian aid to Libya — in addition to two UAE planes sent to the country last week.

The U.N.-approved no-fly zone over Libya is working and will soon be expanded to Tripoli as aircraft from additional coalition countries arrive in the region, the head of U.S. Africa Command said on Monday.

U.S. Army General Carter Ham told a Pentagon briefing that coalition air forces were continuing missions to sustain the no-fly zone and that Libyan ground forces were moving south from rebel-held Benghazi showing “little will or capability” to operate.

Ham said U.S. and U.K. forces launched another 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles over the past 24 hours at sites controlled by Qaddafi. The targets included regime command and control facilities, a surface-to-surface missile site and an air defense station, according to Ham, the operation commander who added that there was no direct coordination among allies and anti-Qaddafi rebels.

Once again, Fox News demonstrated it’s “right wing bias” by refusing to send a reporter to a location at the invititation of Libyan officals. The senior Fox News reporter on the ground (Rick Leventhal) suspected the Libyans were trying to use him for propaganda, if not as a human shield. This behavior by Fox News is quite unfortunate. They really need to listen to icon of progressive journalism Walter Lippman (according to liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky):

The intelligent [elite liberal] minorities have long understood this to be their function. Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.

Adherents of democracy, he wrote back in 1925, “encourage the people to attempt the impossible”—that is, to exercise sovereignty, and this can only result in their “interfering outrageously with the productive activities of the individual.” This must at all costs be avoided “so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.” Even earlier, in his Public Opinion, Lippmann seized on the behaviorism of J. B. Watson (his book, Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist appeared in 1919) to bulwark his attack on democracy. For the mechanical behaviorist view of thinking as pure stimulus and response of the human brain as a mere switchboard—was the source for Lippmann’s invention of the concept of mental “stereotypes.” With this, Lippmann reduced the “reality” of democracy to the manipulation of the “herd’s” mind by the propagandistic conditioning conducted by the elite. Similarly, psychoanalysis and pragmatism appealed to Lippmann—as did eugenics for a time—as scientific demonstrations of the irrational and amoral nature of man, as clinchers that the masses, in Mencken’s phrase, were the “booboisie.”

In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, “When I came back to the United States [from the war], I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans … using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations”.

Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for about 23 years, so he’s clearly a profoundly spiritual and wise man. And Louis Farrakhan is black, and therefore the virtuous victim of white bigotry.

But Wright’s relationship with the controversial Farrakhan extended far beyond an award. In 1984, Wright personally accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to meet with Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli. In 2008, Wright even predicted his association with Farrakhan and Gaddafi may cause political headaches for Obama’s presidential aspirations: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell,” he said.

And, of course, it almost certainly would have. Except the “intelligent minorities” understood that revealing the truth would have outraged the ignorant “bewilderned herd.” Fortunatey, the tremendous journalists from Reuters and CNN were on hand to prevent that from happening.

Just as they were fortunately on hand to prevent the evil American and British pilots from taking out Gaddafi’s primary command and control facility.

Of course, if you are a true believer in mainstream media journalism, you are an atheist. But even though you obviously can’t thank God for the presence of the media, you should thank somebody (Big Brother Obama, perhaps?) that mainstream media outlets like CNN and Reuters were on the scene to keep manipulating the bewildered herd’s mind through the construction of propagandistic condition.

Here is a transcript of what this fool passes off as “journalism” today:

O’DONNELL: Perhaps all of Michele Bachmann’s staff come from her district, which may be the most ignorant Congressional district in America. In 2010, 52 percent of that district voted for Michele Bachmann to represent them in Congress. Now, she had already proven time and time again to her district and to America that she is unworthy of representing any Congressional district in America. But 52 percent, the same percentage in that district who voted for John McCain for president, voted for Michele Bachmann in 2010.

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are whiter than the average district. 92 percent white in fact.

O’DONNELL: But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent white and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

Well, if that “explains nothing,” why bring it up? It’s almost like O’Donnell and his staff knew they were going too far with the 92 percent white remark, and felt they needed to soften it a little by bringing up Emerson’s district.

But the damage was already done. After all, imagine for a moment Bachmann was black, Emerson was black, these were black districts, and the commentator was a conservative:

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are blacker than the average district. 92 percent black in fact. But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent black and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

You think that would have gone over well in the black community, or would there be calls Tuesday for said conservative commentator’s immediate termination?

I guess along with feeling comfortable attacking white women as long as they’re conservative, O’Donnell now feels it’s acceptable to go after all white people.

I am so sick and disgusted with liberals. They are completely depraved people with a completely warped view of the world.

Liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell are totally committed to postmodernism, multiculturalism and pluralism. It’s not that they are intellecutally brainless idiots as much as it is that they have totally committed themselves to totally false theories about the world. Like the whole “Emperor’s New Clothes” story, these “intellectuals” have convinced themselves that their theories are the stuff of genius. Only the more they try to explain their genius theories, the more utterly idiotic they start sounding.

The book of Revelation is a work of fiction describing how a truly vicious God would bring about the end of the world. No half-smart religious person actually believes the book of Revelation. They are certain that their God would never turn into a malicious torturer and mass murderer beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams. Glenn Beck, of course, does believe the book of Revelation.

There is a reason why the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1). And that is because any worldview which does not begin with a divine worldview is already wrong, and can only go more and more wrong as it continues to postulate bad answers to fundamental questions.

Our founding fathers understood this, and their understanding enabled them to found the world’s oldest democratic republic. They realized that democracy – a limited government of the people – demanded that people be able to govern themselves. And that only a moral and religious people could pull that off.

They fought a war over this principle encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

But liberalism fundamentally denies this principle, and constantly seeks for the results of the French Revolution rather than the American Revolution. They refuse to realize that the atheism-based French Revolution inevitably resulted in first chaos and madness, and then a dictator (Napolean seized power within a decade); and that France has had 11 separate Constitutions since 1793, and at least fifteen different governments. Thomas Jefferson rightly said that, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”

Can a white man be an anti-white male-bashing bigot? You’d assume not, until you realize that people like Lawrence O’Donnell are so damn arrogant that they view themselves as transcending their own race and gender even as they claim that everyone else beneath them is a slave to their own. But the fact of the matter is – to quote Barack Obama – “yes, we can.” We can believe a theory that necessarily makes us hate ourselves.

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Just as Caucasian and male “journalist” Lawrence O’Donnell is clearly related to people he despises.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race? I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

Lawrence O’Donnell is a pathological liberal ideologue. Progressive liberal pseudo-intellectualism is rabidly anti-white and anti-man. And so O’Donnell is those things, too. And the fact that O’Donnell is the very things he despises is at best a minor detail to him. Because liberals NEVER worry about inconvenient things like facts.

I would add one other element to the mix: the ingredient of self-hatred which is so necessary to liberalism.

Understand: liberals constantly agitate for policies that will bring about their nation’s certain destruction. You don’t do that sort of thing unless you hate yourself, hate the next generation, hate your country, and literally embrace your own extinction.

At some deep subconscious level, liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell recognize that they are swine, that they are nasty, nasty people. And from that point forward everything else just sort of oozes out of them like toxic slime from a poorly-designed container.

MSNBC has the right to broadcast. Unlike the fascist liberals who constantly agitate to force Rush Limbaugh and Fox News off the air with oxymoronic legislations such as “the fairness doctrine,” I accept that right. But that doesn’t mean anyone but fools need to watch it.

The quite left-leaning Public Policy Polling found Fox News “the most trusted” in last years’ survey. According to their survey this year, Fox has slipped. But, first of all, read this. And second of all, just take another look at the ratings.

Dinesh D’Souza, in his great book What’s So Great About Christianity, begins his first chapter with these words:

God has come back to life. The world is witnessing a huge explosion of religious conversion and growth, and Christianity is growing faster than any other religion. Nietzsche’s proclamation “God is dead” is now proven false. Nietzsche is dead. The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population. Secularism has lost its identification with progress and modernity, and consequently has lost the main source of its appeal. God is very much alive, and His future prospects look to be excellent. This is the biggest comeback story of the twenty-first century.

D’Souza proceeds to document that claim with facts that will make atheists weep and gnash their little rodent fangs. [You can read the chapter here]. Secular humanists long claimed that the progression of reason and science would conquer religious “superstition.” It was a groundless and distorted comparison that is now demonstrated to be a lie, another fairy tale myth of secularism.

“American political parties have disappeared before,” Keith Olbermann warned Republicans in a 2009 “special comment.” The suspended MSNBC host histrionically continued, “You’re rapidly moving from the party of no conscience towards the party of no relevancy. You are behind the wheel of a political Toyota, and before the midterms you will be reduced to obviously being this generation’s home for the nuts.

To play off D’Souza, “Olbermann’s proclamation ‘The Republican Party is dead’ is now proven false. Olbermann is dead.”

And to allude to a song from The Wizard of Oz: “Ding-Dong.” It’s about time.

When it comes to liberals a line out of Willie Wonka puts it best: in a world of pure imagination, what you see will defy explanation.